United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
(OS-120)
January '989
Successful Practices in
Title III Implementation
Tech n icaI Assistanee
Bulletin 6, Vol. 1
Chemical Emergency
Preparedness and Prevention
State of Kansas
Washtenaw County, Michigan
Butler County, Kansas
Jefferson County, Kentucky
-------
-------
ABOUT THIS BULLETIN
This is the first in a series of bulletins EPA is issuing to provide examples of SARA Title HI (the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986) programs and practices that are
innovative or have proven to be .effective. The purpose of these bulletins is to share information on
successful practices with Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs), State Emergency Response
Commissions (SERCs), fire departments, and Title m implementing agencies throughout the country with
the hope that such information will prove useful to other SERCs and LEPCs as their programs develop
and evolve.
Elements from the programs featured here may be transferrable to other programs hi similar
communities or with similar situations. The bulletins will provide information on a variety of practices -
e.g., planning, information management, compliance, outreach. The particular topics covered in each
program description are listed at the upper right hand corner of the first page of the description for easy
reference. If you have any comments on the format of this series of bulletins, please contact Martha
Colvin of the Preparedness Staff, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OS-120, 401 M St., SW,
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 382-4514.
The descriptions of the programs are not exhaustive. They are meant to provide readers with
enough infonnation to decide if a particular idea is possibly applicable to their own situation. Each
description includes a contact person who can provide more detailed information and assistance.
If you know of Tide ffl efforts that you feel would be of interest to others, please cafl your EPA
Regional Preparedness Coordinator (see list on the last page) or the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Infonnation Hotline at 1-800-535-0202 .(in Washington, DC: (202) 479:2449).
•, Preparedness Staff
if Solid Waste and Emergency Response
-------
Leadership
Outreach
Planning
Training
Hazards Analysis
Information Management
Funding
Compliance
State characteristics: 105 counties are LEPDs
SERC: Cabinet officers heading 11 state agencies 3 public representatives, 2 industry representatives;
Chair: Lieutenant Governor
Kansas is often cited as an example of a Title m program that is working well. The Kansas
LEPCs report that they have received the help they need from the SERC. The keys to this success at the
state level are strong leadership and a conviction that Tide m must be a way of life in Kansas, that
because we live in a world with the potential for chemical exposure, Title HI work must be ongoing.
SERC ACTIVITIES
Leadership. The chairman of the SERC is Lieutenant Governor Jack Walker, M.D., who has :
been very active, pushing the eight-person SERC staff to make the program work. The other SERC
members are heads of cabinet offices and high-ranking officials of industry and interest groups. The
combination of SERC members who have the power to get things done and who are committed to the
program has made it possible for the state to develop a proactive program with limited resources.
In the first month or two after the LEPCs were appointed, Kansas LEPC chairs were resigning
with alarming frequency. The SERC members and- staff realized that most of these people were confused
by the totally new program and somewhat apprehensive of.it. They decided the key to making Title HI
work was to make the LEPCs comfortable, to give them all the help possible, to show them how to make
it work. The SERC staff spent a couple of months designing a program of training and outreach
activities that would make it possible for 15 Uy LEPC members to understand Tide m and put it into
action. The result has been a Title m program.that is working throughout the state.
Outreach. Kansas has produced a series of brochures and booklets to explain Tide HI:
• Guide to Community Right-to-Know Compliance under SARA and Kansas Laws
explains how to determine if a facility must comply witii die various Tide ED
requirements and how to comply.
• Summary of Registered Pesticides and Pharmaceutical Products in Kansas lists die
section 302 extremely hazardous substances by dieir trade names and lists die
direshold planning quantities in gallons ratiier than pounds because farmers, in
particular, deal in gallons and trade name products. The booklet even tells how
many flea collars add up to die direshold planning quantity.
-------
Kansas (cont.)
• Brochures directed to specific audiences — e.g., small businesses, farmers ~ to explain
how Title EH might affect them. These brochures have been given to the LEPCs to help
them with their outreach programs, which the state has required them to carry out.
These booklets, developed for facilities, fanners,, and the public, were distributed at special
conferences, state fairs, trade shows, trade association meetings, and at public meetings. In addition,
Kansas had public service announcements on radio and television.
Training. One of the principal methods the Kansas SE 1C has used to make the LEPCs
comfortable with Title HI and their responsibilities has been trailing. Using State and Federal funding,
the SERC has given its training courses at locations around the State. The SERC believes it has trained
the largest number of people at the lowest cost of any state in its region.; The SERC has provided
courses in: .
• Recognizing and identifying hazardous materials (six hour course);
• The pesticide challenge (Pesticides and Title HI) (16 hour course);
• Hazardous materials contingency planning (40 hour course); and
• Hazards analysis (16 hour course).
Because the-SERC mandated that each LEPC conduct a vulnerability analysis as part of its
planning, the SERC decided it needed a course that thoroughly explained the Technical Guidance for
Hazards Analysis, the "green book" prepared by EPA,, FEMA, and DOT. Students are asked to bring
their own county and city maps as well as their lists of chemicals present in their community.
Planning. To help LEPCs prepare their plans, the SERC developed a plan with one county that
other LEPCs could use as a sample. The sample is not a "fill in the blanks" model Instead it is an
example showing LEPCs the types of letters that have been sent to facilities, the by-laws that have been
adopted by another LEPC, and the methods used for hazards analysis. While some parts of the plan may
be adaptable, the main purpose of the sample is to show other LEPCs what a real plan for a Kansas
LEPC looks like. The SERC is also working with LEPCs on the draft plans so that the final plains
submitted will be acceptable.
Hazard Identification. In further support of LEPC planning, the SERC has suggested at least
two methods to be used to gather information for the hazards analysis described in the "green book." For
smaller counties, the SERC has asked for a 12-hour road survey (see Butler County description below).
The LEPCs collect information on all the hazardous materials being transported hi the county over a 12-
hour period. The method has been an effective tool for making the smaller counties realize that even if
they lack industry they have hazardous materials and may have to respond to emergencies.
For the more populated areas the SERC has developed the Hazards Incidents Complexity
Analysis. This method divides the area into 2 mile by 2 mile grids. For each grid, the LEPC collects
historical accident data, information on special populations (e.g., hospitals, schools), and environmental
factors such as aquifers. The LEPC then rates the hazards in each grid in relation to the other grids to
determine where the highest priorities should be assigned for the planning process. Although the method
is not statistically valid, the SERC believes it creates an awareness of the problems.
Information Management. The SERC is developing an information management system that wifl
depend on state rather than LEPC efforts. The SERC believes such a system is needed because
individual LEPCs are not able to handle large quantities of MSDSs. The state has purchased the
HAZOX software package and given it to four counties as a pilot project. The package contains the J.T.
-------
Kansas (cont.)
Baker Chemical Library that provides standardized MSDSs for each chemical as well as EPA chemical
profiles. Eventually, the SERC hopes to have a system that can be accessed and used by every LEPC.
Funding. The State legislature has passed a bill to fund the SERC program. Hah7 the funds
come from general revenues, the other half from fees. Originally, the state intended to fund the entire
program through fees, but decided that because the program benefits the public, they should share some
of the burden. The following fees have been adopted:
• For section 311 lists, $23/facility.
• For each MSDS, $6. .
• For Tier I forms, $6/facility.
• For Tier H forms, $9/report.
• For section 313. forms, $187/facility.
• For annual filing of any section 311-313 forms, $2.
The state charges no fee for filing section 302 notifications. The state does not provide.funding
forLEPCs.
The Title in planning process has forced the counties to look at their resources and, in some
cases, to write ordinances to give themselves enforcement powers. For example, some are adopting
ordinances that make the responsible party pay for a cleanup.
Compliance. On October 18, 1988, the SERC published a list of LEPCs that have not completed
plans. The SERC is also emphasizing that the LEPCs have a public safety responsibility: If the LEPC
fails to develop a plan and an accident happens, it could be liable if people are hurt or property damaged
when planning could have prevented it.
LESSONS LEARNED
Have a Broad-Based LEPC Membership. Inclusion of people who are not typically part of the
emergency planning process has been critical to the success of the Kansas program. These people ask the
"simple" questions that need to be asked and they bring new ideas to the process.
The SERC has also come to realize that there is a great deal of misunderstanding on the part of
local officials and responders -about the type of assistance that would be available from the state and
federal government Some LEPCs expect that the state or federal government will send a hazardous
materials response team to handle incidents. The process of working with the LEPCs has been useful in
educating them about their responsibilities. The planning process is also being used to focus on needed
resources to be requested in county budgets.
Committed SERC the Key. SERC staff emphasize that the key to success is a committed, active
SERC that makes the LEPCs comfortable.
Contact: Frank Moussa
Adjutant General's Office
PO Box 300C
Topeka, Kansas 66601
(913) 233-7560
-------
Funding
Information Management
Washtenaw County [ Prevention
MICHIGAN ~
d?
LEPC: 28 members (elected officials, law enforcement, fire i rhters, medical, transportation, community
and environmental groups, labor, education, agricultur , emergency response, facilities; chair:
community representative)
Population: 272,000
Facilities: 41 to date, primarily related to the automobile industry and waste water
treatment. ' !
Washtenaw County passed its own right-to-know regulation through the Board of Health in 1986.
Because of State preemption, however, the county did not begin enforcing it until 1988. The law is w
broader than Title HI in that it covers OSHA hazardous chemicals and chemicals on a State registry, the
county, however, is dovetailing the program with Title HI and using the information being gathered during
inspections to help with the plan required under SARA section 303.
LEPC ACTIVITIES
Funding. The county regulations allow the local environmental health bureau to inspect facilities
that handle or store hazardous chemicals and charge a fee for the inspection. Until 1990, -facilities with
aggregate amounts of toxic chemicals in excess of 275 gallons are required to report the presence of those
chemicals; each reporting facility will be inspected. After 1990, the reportable quantity will become 27 1/2
gallons. Fees range from $100 to $600 based on aggregate volume. The money collected through the fee
system will pay for the inspectors and for the administration of the inspection program; the fees do not
pay for Tide HI planning.
Prevention of Chemical Accidents. So far the inspections have uncovered a number of potentially
dangerous situations that have since been rectified. For example, one person who ,was running a tou
from his home had blasting caps stored in the house and dynamite stored nearby outside the house.
Another inspection uncovered ten-years worth of hazardous waste improperly stored.
In addition, during their inspections, the local environmental health bureau has discovered taat
many facilities lack any detection systems to alert them to a leak. The LEPC is advising facilities at tfce
need for better equipment and is urging them to install detection systems that will monitor potential '—*
and thus protect their employees and the community. All efforts are coordinated with local fire
departments that would cover these facilities in an emergency situation.
Information Management. The county has developed forms that in some respects parallel the
Tier II forms required under section 312 of SARA. These county forms for the reporting of the
chemicals covered under the county regulation can then be used as worksheets for filling in the Tier 0
forms.' The county has offered seminars -to help facilities fill in the forms.
-------
Washnetaw County, Michigan (cont.)
LESSONS LEARNED
Local Regulations Help. The County's local Right-to-Know regulation has provided funding for
the program and has allowed the LEPC to identify many more facilities that are covered under Title Ed
than originally reported to the SERC. The LEPC has been able to work with these facilities to provide
them with the information they need to comply.
Contact: Dr. Rebecca Head
c/o Department of Public Works/Hazardous Substance Panel
110 N. 4th Ave.
PO Box 8645
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107
(313) 994-2398
or
Robert Blake
c/o Environmental Health Bureau
2355 West Stadium Bfod.
Box 8645
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107
(313) 994-4958
-------
Butler County
Hazards Identification Survey
KANSAS XXl „ Transportation
Outreach
LEPC: 20 members (includes three,county commissioners, health department, media, industry, county
director of the environment)
Population: 48,000
Facilities: 1 major refinery '
Butler is a relatively rural county in southeastern Kansas. When the LEPC began its Tide DDE
work, members assumed that few hazardous substances were used or stored in their community. The
county, however, has five major highways, two railroad lines, and 800 miles of pipelines.
LEPC ACTIVITIES
Hazards Identification Survey. The Butler County LEPC conducted a 12-hour survey to identify
hazardous materials transported in or through the county. To cany out the survey, the LEPC developed
a form for traffic watchers to fin in. The form asked for the type of vehicle - e.g^ tank truck, non-tank
truck — and the placard number. They chose as the locations they would survey the eight main entrance
points to the county (which includes the Kansas turnpike) as well as 7 other points within the county.
They conducted the survey over 12 hours because they wanted to know peak times as well as the number
of vehicles. .
The LEPC members themselves took part in the survey and several volunteered the time of other
people; for example, the sheriff volunteered his deputies; the Texaco representative brought a couple of
his stair; and one member volunteered her mother. People took 4- to 6-hour shifts. Using the LEPC
members instead of an all-volunteer force helped involve the members in the process and gave, them an
investment in the plan. Once the survey was done, all the information was plotted on a large map to give
the LEPC a picture of where the hazardous materials are and which are the major routes of concern for
planning purposes.
Outreach. The pubik relations people on the LEPC persuaded the local newspaper to run
articles on Title HI and its significance to the public. The paper ran one major article and a couple of
follow-up pieces later. The LEPC also ran spots on the radio. One LEPC member is a radio disk jockey
so he was able to present the spots himsdl
The LEPC members also spoke to the Secretaries' Club, the Lions, Kiwams, and the Rotary Club
to reach the local business community.
LESSONS LEARNED
Help Comes from Unexpected Places. One major lesson the Butler County LEPC learned, and
the one for which it has received national publicity, is that help can be found in. unexpected places. The
LEPC hazards identification survey and emergency plan were developed by Allen Roe, an-inmate at the
state prison, who had been working as a file clerk in the county health office. Roe estimates thai he has-
-------
c Butler County, Kansas (cont.)
*
now spent over 800 hours working on the plan, meeting with SERC staff to review the plan, and providing
information and help to other counties. Roe urges counties to use inmates, if appropriate, and senior
citizens. Not only do senior citizens have time, but they also are responsible and they know the county.
Contact: Beverly Gaines or Allen Roe
Butler County Court House
Eldorado, Kansas 67042
(316) 321-3400
-------
Training
Planning
Funding
Information Management
LEPC: 200-plus members (including representatives of all facilities reporting)
Population: 675,000 (includes Louisville)
Facilities: 210 reporting facilities
In 1985, an accidental release of hexane resulted in an explosion that destroyed property above 2
1/2 miles of sewer lines. Following that incident, the county adopted an ordinance that required
hazardous materials reporting and the development of emergency plans by facilities.
LEPC AcnvmEs
Training. Partially as a result of the planning process that was begun following the sewer system
accident, the county health department developed and delivered ha/mat training for the Federal Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. This hazmat training is focused on health department concerns (e.g., treatment of exposed
people and equipment), but it also covers all other aspects of hazardous materials response. Many of the
emergency services organizations within the county participate in this training process. The course is one
week in length and is open to anyone interested. Health officials, planners, and first responders from
various parts of the county have attended the training sessions.
Planning. As a result of the planning that followed the 1985 incident, fire departments in
Jefferson County adopted FEMA's integrated emergency management system. Tide HI information is
now integrated into the existing hazardous materials annex that was created initially under that plan.
The State of Kentucky has determined that all facilities subject to SARA reporting will be
represented on LEPCs. As a result, in addition to county representatives, Jefferson County^ LEPC has
one member for each of the 210 reporting faculties. The number of initially affected facilities was 218,
but 8 reduced inventories to avoid reporting requirements. At first the large number of members of the
LEPC seemed unwieldy, but it has led to wide involvement in the planning process by industry. Most of
the work is being done by subcommittees consisting of LEPC members.
Facilities have .taken an active role in reducing hazards to the community, participating in the
development of plan-;, and reducing and dividing inventories. For example, some facilities now break up
stored hazardous substances into smaller containers. This reduces the overall hazard since the risk of all
of the substance being involved in an accident is diminished. The overall relationship between the county
and industry has been improved as a result of the legislation.
The county goes beyond the requirements of Tide HI by requiring die development of on-site and
off-site plans by facilities. These plans are separate'from die overall county plan. The on-site plans cover
hazardous materials incidents dial are completely contained witiiin die facility fenceline. The off-site plan*
include diose incidents tiiat pass beyond die boundaries of die facility. The facility must identify special
populations and otiier sensitive locations nearby for inclusion in die plan. To assist facilities with these
-------
Jefferson County, Kentucky (cont.)
•
plans, the county prepared sample plans. The LEPC identifies the vulnerable zone for the facility using
Computer Aided Management of Emergency Operations CAMEO™ system calculations based on the
Technical Guidance for Hazards Analysis, a document jointly published by EPA, FEMA, and DOT.
The LEPC is broken into committees which individually are developing parts of the county's plan.
The work of the committees is voted on by the full LEPC. The committees include the following:
Health Issues and OSHA Regulations Committee, Community Emergency Planning Committee, Com- „
munity Ordinance and Trade Secret Committee, and Information Committee.
Funding. The City of Louisville and Jefferson County each provided $25,000 and industry
voluntarily provided another $50,000 for use by the LEPC infonnation committee in undertaking public
education about community right-to^know. Industry has^ contributed this money in the interest of
providing the public with a'full understanding of the infonnation reported. Funding for other LEPC
activities comes primarily from the city and county.,
Information Management Jefferson County is using CAMEQ™ to assist with planning. The
Office of Disaster and Emergency Services digitized a map of the county to put into the CAMEO'"
system. In addition, on-site and off-site emergency plans that are required to be submitted by facilities
will be included in the system.
Contact: Bud Fekete
Louisville—Jefferson County
Disaster and Emergency Services
Room 113, City Hall '
601 West Jefferson
Louisville, KY 40202
(502) 625-3900
1 CAMEO*1 is a personal computer (Apple Macintosh) based community planning and response tool
It was jointly developed by NOAA and EPA and is designed to help communities comply with Title HI
planning requirements.
10
-------
REGIONAL PREPAREDNESS COORDINATORS
Ray DiNardo
EPA - Region 1
New England Regional Lab
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
Bruce Sprague
EPA - Region 2
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
Karen Brown
EPA - Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Henry Hudson
EPA - Region 4
345 Courtland Street, ME
Atlanta, GA 30365
Jack Barnette
,EPA - Region 5
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, EL 60604
Minnie Rojo
EPA - Region 6
Allied Bank Tower
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Ron Ritter
EPA - Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Cheryl Chrisler
EPA - Region 8
One Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 1300
Denver, CO 80202-2413
Kathleen Shimmin
EPA - Region 9
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Gordon Goff
EPA - Region 10
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Regions
4 - Alabama
10 - Alaska
9 - Arizona
6 - Arkansas
9 - California
8 - Colorado
1 - Connecticut
3 - Delaware
3 - D.C.
4 -.Florida
4 - Georgia
9 - Hawaii
10 - Idaho
5 - Illinois
5 - Indiana
7 - Iowa
7 -Kansas
4 - Kentucky
6 - Louisiana
Regions
1 - Maine
3 - Maryland
1 - Massachusetts
5 - Michigan
5 - Minnesota
4 - Mississippi
7 - Missouri
8 - Montana
7 - Nebraska
9 - Nevada
1 - New Hampshire
2 - New Jersey
6 -. New Mexico
2 - New York
4 - North Carolina
4 - North Dakota
5 - Ohio
6 - Oklahoma
10 - Oregon
Regions
3 - Pennsylvania
1 - Rhode Island
4 - South Carolina
8 - South Dakota
4 - Tennessee
6 - Texas
8 - Utah
1 - Vermont
3 - Virginia
10 - Washington
3 - West Virginia
5 - Wisconsin
8 - Wyoming
9 - American Samoa
9 - Guam
2 - Puerto Rico
2 - Virgin Islands
-------
------- |